Fizzle

Jason Kessler defiled the American flag yesterday by associating it with racism. With his latest rally a pathetic bust, Virginians can only hope we have seen the last of him.

So much for the Alt-Right.

Denied a permit to hold a really in Charlottesville, Alt-Right agitator and provocateur Jason Kessler organized a rally in Washington, D.C., on the anniversary of last year’s Unite the Right rally that resulted in widespread violence and the death of a counter-protester. Thousands came — but they were almost all counter-protesters. The Washington Post reports that Kessler attracted only 40 to his “white civil rights rally.”

Other than Kessler and the media, which still hews to the philosophy that if it bleeds, it leads, the group most disappointed by the pathetic Alt-Right showing likely was the radical left.

Antifa members vented their frustration at not being able to confront the rallygoers by lighting smoke bombs and firecrackers and throwing eggs in the direction of police. By then, a steady rain was falling, however, and the protest was fizzling. Most began heading home, but police kept a watchful eye as the black-clad group carrying umbrellas wandered about knocking over trash cans, chanting “Bust a window!” and yelling at police to get out of their cars and “meet us in the streets.”

Meanwhile, in Charlottesville, counter-protesters gathered despite the absence of any white supremacists at all. Last year, lefties criticized the police for letting the situation spiral out of control. This year, they criticized the police for their excessive presence. Reports the Washington Post:

Protesters screamed at police officers, whom some demonstrators had all weekend tried to associate with racism and fascism.

The night before, protesters had gathered at the steps of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia, before a giant banner that said, “Last year they came with torches; this year they come with badges,” and then marched through the streets for hours. On Sunday, the protesters, who had come out to combat absent white supremacists, were trying to combat the police, too. They cursed them. Insulted their looks. “Blue lives don’t matter,” the crowd chanted. And: “We don’t need cops.”

The radical left desperately needs a radical right to give itself meaning and legitimacy in the eyes of the broader public. Take the radical right out of the equation, and the radical left has to find new enemies — and it looks like the police are the most likely candidates. Unlike the Alt-Right, which appears to be imploding, the radical left isn’t going away.

22 responses to “Fizzle”

No better irony than the Rugby Rd chant of protesters (against racism) “All Cops are Racist.” Does anyone contemplate logic before they speak? https://twitter.com/jamesftinternet/status/1028425371404984320?s=12
And after all the money spent, all the energy mobilized this past weekend, has anything substantive in race relations been shifted? There is still no dialogue, only slogans and vitriol.

After viewing the anti-police video on your link, I’m struck by a Washington Post headline about the D.C. rallies: “White-supremacist rally near White House dwarfed by thousands of anti-hate protesters.”

You nailed it: “Other than Kessler and the media…the group most disappointed by the pathetic Alt-Right showing likely was the radical left.” I think it was an ego-trip by Kessler. He knows that the only political winner from a sizeable alt-right showing is the Left, who can frame such a showing a “clear and present danger” to justify more crack-downs and Leftist violence. The Left doesn’t understand that it is, and will continue to be, seen as the greater danger in the battle of the extremes. The media also looked ridiculous in their hype. More justly deserved contempt for them from more and more normal people.

The alt right has a man in the White House who supports some of the policies they want, i.e. immigration and opposition to political correctness. They need to shut up and let him implement them. They are the political equivalent of “typhoid Mary” for Trump supporters.

But the double-standard of Leftist violence being “righteous” still retains much support among Democrats. These people have learned nothing from the myriad revolutions that began in 1789. Some of them would inflict the kind of mass violence committed by these.

And I think characterizing the anti-racist crowds as “far left” or “radical left” is hilarious.

Many of them are the same kinds of folks who stood against lynchings, segregation and massive resistance … and it really shows just how rancid the “free speech defenders” have gotten of late.. i.e. it’s “free speech” they say they are defending..

Ordinary, Good people who don’t like racist thugs..and their advocacy to harm folks who are not “their kind” are exercising their “free speech”.

And I suspect, will continue to do so – every time these sorry excuses for humans show up to “exercise” their “free speech”… of hate and intolerance towards others.

When a crowd takes over a street while chanting “All cops are racist!” I call that “‘free speech…of hate and intolerance towards others'” and view them as racist thugs.

I think that their view is pretty radical.

We seem to be arriving at an understanding that the heinous views of white supremacists are not succeeding as the biggest threat to American culture in terms of numbers nor spread of an evil doctrine. Maybe the protesters would be more effective if they chanted, “America was built on immigration-most of it legal” or “Fight the soft bigotry of lower expectations” or “Walk a mile in thy neighbors’ shoes.” Clunky word-smithing but gets more to the heart of our daily, common matters.

I don’t know how anyone who has had their DNA tested and been matched with cousins can think that most of are anything than mutts – a mixture of all sorts of ancestors. And that’s only going back a 100o years or so. We share a helluva lot more than we think.

“And I think characterizing the anti-racist crowds as “far left” or “radical left” is hilarious. Many of them are the same kinds of folks who stood against lynchings, segregation and massive resistance …”

One thing we can be certain Is that “the folks who stood FOR lynchings, segregation and massive resistance …” WERE ALL, ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ALL, DEMOCRATS.” And that not one Republican, not a single one, is known to have owed a slave, not a single one, even, never.

They were Democrats IN NAME ONLY! If you look at their political philosophy and their attitudes towards other human beings – they’re the same folks with the same philosophies towards other humans, they always have been today and back then.

We changed the name of the political parties but the folks who wanted people to be kept as slaves, who fought to preserve that ability .. then lynched blacks, created Jim Crow laws, put up “statues” to remind blacks of that heritage, implemented separate fountains and bathrooms, advocated segregation – engaged in Massive Resistance… yes.. they did start out as Democrats in name and morphed to the GOP – in name.

they’re the same folks they always have been – no matter what political labels were used then or now.

And one can judge for themselves those who emphasize support the “free speech” of the haters but continue to ignore what that free speech is actually advocating harm against other human beings.

Don’t let the labels confuse nor be used for hiding the truth. People who hate others for their color or heritage or other characteristics – have been around a long time… regardless of the labels. When someone uses their “free speech” to advocate hate against others – each of us ALSO has to decide for ourselves what we support – also… and “free speech” is just one part of it.

No, Larry, they were all Democrats who willingly accepted, and indeed promoted, and invited into the Democratic Party, those who accepted lynchings, segregation and massive resistance, and miscegenation laws… and before that slavery, north and south, and they included Democratic Presidents of the United States. People, all people, each and every one, even you and I, Larry, do very bad things, and do them frequently. Even Democrats, Larry.

In fact, Larry the Democratic Party was started with its strong support for, and built itself up on the institution of slavery and terrorism too. And, once the Democrats had killed off most all the Indians from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a platform of terrorism that took them the better part of a 10o years, they got back into the business of slavery so as to keep themselves in power.

– the Democrats, most all of them, lynched blacks, created Jim Crow laws, put up “statues” to remind blacks of that heritage, and they implemented separate fountains and bathrooms, and they advocated segregation up, through the 1950s, so as to keep themselves as Democrats on going in power in both the North and the South

In fact, Larry, it was so bad that as a Democrat you could not be the president of the United States without being a member of, or strong public sympathizer with, the Klu Klux Klan until after Harry Truman. Without being a racist, you simply could not get enough Democratic votes.

The political labeling is purposeful, convenient obfuscation of the simple truth of who was in favor of slavery, fought to keep it, enacted Jim Crow laws, engaged in lynchings… segregation, Massive Resistance. You’ll find the racists of today supported the racism of the past… only the political labels have changed.

I have no problem at all condemning the Democrats of old – no problem. I condemn anyone who engages in that kind of hate… then – and now – today no matter what political labels they wore then or wear now.

Did ALL the Democrats of old suddenly drop all their racism and embrace people of color – and the GOP of old who supposedly hated racism – then switched sides and now support candidates for office like Stewart?

Just keep your eye on those who openly hate others… they’re easy to spot – and that’s the reason why they are now “fizzling”. The internet/social media did give them voice and the ability to find each other and organize it also made it easy for others to see who they are and most folks don’t want them as employees or friends or neighbors…..

Woodrow Wilson was probably the most racist American president in history. He reversed the efforts of Theodore Roosevelt to open the civil service to blacks and instituted Jim Crow laws in the District of Columbia.

Why haven’t we see cries to remove Wilson’s name from the I-95 bridge crossing the Potomac River?

Every Democratic President from Andrew Jackson through Harry Truman was a racist, Larry by your definition. Half of West Virginia is named after Robert Byrd, an active leader of the Klu Klux Klan along with Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, along with dozens upon dozens of top Democratic leaders in the first half of 20th Century.

Larry says: “And I think characterizing the anti-racist crowds as “far left” or “radical left” is hilarious. Many of them are the same kinds of folks who stood against lynchings, segregation and massive resistance …”

These folks are carrying on a very long tradition going back Mussolini during and after the first War, a model and often hero for many Democrats, including FDR, until the late 1930s. And here we go again on the streets of Charlottesville and Washington DC as recently as last week-end.

Human nature does not change, Larry. It just reinvents itself to meet the requirements of today’s Fads in order to aggregate power for itself at the expense of other people, especially those deemed outside, or different from, the tribe being manipulated.

I will try to help Larry along with the Part 3 of the Path to Polarization series. Meanwhile I suggest Larry read again my comment below orginally published on December 21, 2017 beneath your post titled Fewer Young People, More Geezers working these days. Here it is for Larry:

“Reed Fawell 3rd says:

‘Acbar says:

“We’ve learned a lot this year. One thing learned is that thoughtful people are concerned about causation, whereas reactionaries at both ends of the spectrum care only about results. History has no significance, even relevance, for people who don’t care why we are the way we are, but simply wish (demand) that we be different. We see this in the occasional deliberate choice to erase history … Yes, those who ignore history may be doomed to repeat it … But another thing learned is that there is ugliness in our history … God grant us the wisdom to admit the difference, and to deal with the latter as they deserve.”

I’ve come to believe that learning important aspects of history in a true and meaningful way, and applying that learning to our world today, is far more difficult, complex, and demanding than I had ever imagined. The task demands all of our powers and their immense efforts. For anyone doing such task well, and thus having an impact that might change reality, will encounter fierce resistance from the present.

This is why so many great books of history (or art or science) are written in varying degrees of code on so many levels, if only to keep the writers neck, or his work, off the chopping block.

This is also why so much great history (like art and science) has been intentionally destroyed. Or buried, even if its creator lives to die of natural causes. It is the reason so many are in exile.

The truth is that the present hates to hear the truth about today, and it hates to hear the truths of history that brought us to where we are today. Truth is the perennial orphan, particularity truth having relevance to today’s world.

Why?

Much of the truth is very ugly. Most of the truth is novel, quite strange, mostly unknown. Most truth is very uncomfortable, even under the best of circumstances, and it is very significantly different, far different, often quite the opposite, from what the reader may have thought or believed to be the truth before uncovering the truth. Particularly so as the truth is only as good and deep as the searcher powers to uncover, judge, and appreciate it, a journey during which he or she must overcome many obstacles. Even then, the truth will die unless the searcher finds a way to keep that true alive.

How many died in Rome citing that book as the authority for what was in fact going on in Rome for 500 years after the fall of the Roman Republic? Ask Cicero how many before they chopped off his hands. No, the better question is who cited Book VIII and lived to see the sun rise again.

The truth that Socrates (through Plato) taught mankind about itself brings to us just as much bitterness today. And it is just as misunderstood today as it was in ancient Rome. Thomas Jefferson despised the book. John Adams “built his Church up its rock.” Disputations over its meanings and conclusions fueled perhaps the most vicious and vitriolic presidential campaign in American history. That between Jefferson and Adams in 1800. During those bitter times, it unfairly damaged and destroyed reputations of fine men up until this very day, and indeed threatened our Federal form of government in its infancy.

This morning, thanks to Andrew, I read Book VIII front to back for the first time in a decade. I saw it in a wholly different light, given what I have learned in the last decade.

Why?

Because like Andrew says, the Book helps to explain much of the ugliness of history and how it is borne along through time on the wings of the dark aspects of human nature, and the systems that men and women build and operate to promote and protect those dark instincts of their human nature.

There is a great paradox here, one that is the great gift of history. The more the searcher for the truth of history uncovers the more he must confront the ugliness of history. But here to is where the great gift arises. For the more ugliness he or she can confront and work through and appreciate, the more he or she comes to appreciate the good and noble acts of men and women who endure that ugliness with their goodness intact and so often overcome it in ways large and small, and even reverse that dark side of history and human nature.

And then also comes the second great gift, that is one that Martin Luther King shines his light on – how also the searcher for the truth so often comes to see that the real evil is often built into not only “the systems within human nature, but also the systems that human nature builds and operates to generate so much evil in the world we all must live in and deal with.

Some people far more than others must deal directly with and confront this dark reality. This is why the good warrior, the good teacher, and the good scholar are so precious to us all. Our Civilization depends on these good people to an inordinate degree, and we, the rest of us, reap the great benefits the bestow on us.”

AND OF COURSE:

It’s is important here today, some 8 months later, not to pick on Larry alone, because we all, each and everyone of us, have the very same problem and it is very hard most always to overcome the UGLINESS OF HISTORY. Particularly for the young among us, hence the rioting in the streets that we have witnesses for over the two years in Charlottesville.”

AND, IN THAT REGARD:

SHAME ON ALL THOSE PROFESSORS AT UVA TODAY WHO HAVE NOT ONLY ENCOURAGED THAT RIOTING AND LAWBREAKING IN CHARLOTTESVILLE,

BUT THOSE PROFESSORS WHO, IN FAR TO MANY CASES, HAVE ACTIVELY INCITED, AIDED AND ABETTED THAT RIOTOUS BEHAVIOR, EVEN LEADING IT’S PLANNING, IT’S LOGISTICS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND INTELLIGENCE GATHERING.

IN FACT, UVA OWNS ALL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA AND INDEED ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA, A VERY BIG APOLOGY.

Folks – we don’t need a history lesson about racism and it’s policies – it’s pretty clear – I really care not how labels are attached nor how some folks try hard to distract the essential truth which is that we have people who hate others who are not their kind and would, if they could, implement policies today like we saw in the past with racists.

Yes we have those who oppose them who would use violence against them – but again – one group essentially supports racist policies against people of color and the other group – opposes the racists…

You stand up against racism – or you are complicit in it.. no excuses – no pointing at others behaviors.. the way you deal with “the dark instincts of humans” is to stand up and oppose it .. not write prose about it.

Larry says: “You stand up against racism – or you are complicit in it.. no excuses – no pointing at others behaviors.. the way you deal with “the dark instincts of humans” is to stand up and oppose it .. not write prose about it.”

Larry. Where does anyone here disagree with you? How are you different by your thoughts and actions from the rest of us?

In a word, Larry, you believe that the cause of anti-racism is so virtuous that it excuses any excess. There is no room in Larry World to oppose “racism” — which in today’s parlance ranges from the truly vile to the merely controversial — while at the same time acknowledging that Americans have the right to think and say what they wish, no matter how misguided.

Or, to follow Reed’s point about causation versus outcome, I would say that my concern about the excesses of those protesting racism is outcome. I in no way wish to limit their legal expression of outrage, I just want the method to produce an effective outcome, to yield a new conversation, awareness, policy, something. My observation is that no one really hears the extremists’ message on either end; they are tuned out by those who are actually working mainly at the center.

Subscribe to blog via email

Subscribe to blog by RSS feed

About

Bacon's Rebellion is Virginia's leading politically non-aligned portal for news, opinions and analysis about state, regional and local public policy. Read more about us here.

Submit op-eds

We welcome a broad spectrum of views. If you would like to submit an op-ed for publication in Bacon’s Rebellion, contact editor/publisher Jim Bacon at jabacon[at]baconsrebellion.com (substituting “@” for “at”).